[bboy_spy]

Well John just hit the nail on the head right there. 1993...wow.

[Rake]

Originally Posted by gtcrafty

Who cares? V6's are only good for fuel mileage and buying groceries.

Question for the mods: Why aren't V6 bashers like this banned from the V6 forums?

[bboy_spy]

who cares just ignore the comment. No need to start arguing about stupid crap. We all love our cars, that's what matters. End of story.

[amustangrocks]

Originally Posted by Rake

Question for the mods: Why aren't V6 bashers like this banned from the V6 forums?

ya, there was no reason to post that statement. if you find a post offensive or out of line, there is a red triangle below their name to the left of the post at the bottom, to report it to the mods.

[05silverstangv6]

Originally Posted by 750chop

Im gonna disagree with that ignorant statement. I dont know about the rest of yalls V6 cars but mine isnt exactly a fuel sipping focus. And some of the baddest "muscle cars" made have been 6 cyl. Porsche 911, Buick GN, GMC cyclone and typhoon(trucks ok, but you get the point). I think 2 doors, 300hp, and 3 pedals makes it a muscle car, number of cylinders be damned.

i agree that there have been plenty of bad ass v-6's, but would you consider a 2 door civic with 3 pedals making 300 hp a muscle car. the muscle car era is ova the new retro cars are nice gotta love the new designs there coming out with but i dont think of them as muscle cars

[Ken04]

Originally Posted by johnnshepherd

my 1993 ranger has a 4.0 cologne engine in it actually lol

actually the Cologne series of engines have been around a LONG time. But so has the small block chevy. It works, I like it. Besides, what an UGLY car the new Camaro is.

The original Ford Cologne V6, also known as the Ford Taunus V6, is a series of 60° cast iron block V6engines produced continuously by the Ford Motor Company in Cologne, Germany since 1968. In its original form, it was closely related to the Ford Taunus V4 engine, adding two cylinders and no longer requiring a balance shaft.
Throughout its production run, the Cologne V6 has evolved from the engine displacements of 1.8, 2.0, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9 and 4.0 litres engines. All except the Cosworth 24v derivative and later 4.0 litre SOHC engines were pushrodoverhead valve engines, with a single camshaft between the banks. The 4.0 litre SOHC version remains in production and is the only version of the engine currently offered, with 210 hp (160 kW) and 240 ft·lbf (330 N·m) torque

[gtcrafty]

Originally Posted by Rake

Question for the mods: Why aren't V6 bashers like this banned from the V6 forums?

Chillax...it's all in good fun

Been there, done that with sixes. Comparing a new Mustang V6 or Camaro RS to a GNX, GTA, or SyTy is like comparing a Focus to a Z06. For every amount of horsepower GM and Ford add to their cars, they will simply one-up each other until it becomes unprofitable. Ford has had no reason at all to add any power to the V6 and GT for five years. The GTO was no competition in sales, so it didn't matter that it had 45-100 more HP than the GT. Once the Mustang retakes the sales flag, and it will eventually, the power will remain the same for many years, no matter what GM or Dodge do.

[johnnshepherd]

from wikipedia:

The 4.0-L (245 CID; 4009 cc) version, although produced in Cologne like the others, was only fitted to American vehicles. The pushrod OHV engine was produced until 2000 and was used in the Ford Explorer, Ford Aerostar, Mazda B4000 and Ford Ranger. Output was 190 hp (119 kW) and 225 ft·lbf (305 N·m). Though there is some variation, typically 155 hp (116 kW) is quoted as horsepower for 1990-92 applications.

Currently the only version of the Cologne engine still in production, the SOHC version was introduced in 1997 in the Ford Explorer, alongside the original pushrod version. It features a variable length intake manifold and produces 210 hp (157 kW) and 245 lb·ft (332 N·m)f. It uses a jackshaft in place of a camshaft to drive a timing chain to each cylinder head. Three timing chains are used, one from the crank to the jackshaft, one in the front of the engine to drive the cam for the left bank, and one on the back of the engine to drive the cam for the right bank. Ford Power Products sells this engine as the SOHC-640.

[gtcrafty]

Originally Posted by johnnshepherd

from wikipedia:
It uses a jackshaft in place of a camshaft to drive a timing chain to each cylinder head. Three timing chains are used, one from the crank to the jackshaft, one in the front of the engine to drive the cam for the left bank, and one on the back of the engine to drive the cam for the right bank. Ford Power Products sells this engine as the SOHC-640.

I can appreciate the cost savings, but that is ghetto engineering at it's finest. Ford has better engines it its stable than that kind of POS work.

[bboy_spy]

welcome to marketing.

[burnrubber4.0]

yea, but my 6 gets my groceries faster than a GT tho...

[jaja6009]

I like the Camaro V6. GM didnt just throw any engine in the car they threw in one of its best. That engine was in the Cadillac CTS which won Motor Trend car of the year. Its got direct injection, variable valve timing and gets great fuel mileage. Whens the last time Ford put such a great engine in a base model. This is like Ford putting the Ecoboost in the V6 Mustang. If the car didnt weigh so much it would be a 13 sec car bone stock although Im sure someone will get a 13sec stock soon. The camaro forums have alot of people in the low 14s bone stock. With the SS running 12s with driver mod and good air all Stangs V6 and V8 better get some mods. I prefer Ford but I respect what GM has done with these cars except for the weight.

[Ken04]

Originally Posted by jaja6009

I like the Camaro V6. GM didnt just throw any engine in the car they threw in one of its best. That engine was in the Cadillac CTS which won Motor Trend car of the year. Its got direct injection, variable valve timing and gets great fuel mileage. Whens the last time Ford put such a great engine in a base model. This is like Ford putting the Ecoboost in the V6 Mustang. If the car didnt weigh so much it would be a 13 sec car bone stock although Im sure someone will get a 13sec stock soon. The camaro forums have alot of people in the low 14s bone stock. With the SS running 12s with driver mod and good air all Stangs V6 and V8 better get some mods. I prefer Ford but I respect what GM has done with these cars except for the weight.

yea GM has offered some great models recently, probably why they're doing so well financially. Building and selling cars is a business. Make a good product at a fair price and people buy it.

I agree the camaro isn't a bad car, the engine is a good one. The chassis, although stolen from Holden in Australia is also a pretty good unit. It is a tad heavy, so some of the horsepower advantage is lost.

But damn, it is just butt-ugly. And I have tried to like it, I just can't. I like the Challenger, the camaro just leaves me wondering if the designers were drunk when they drew it up.

Buying a car isn't all about it's 1/4 mile time. It has to look good, perform fairly well, be comfortable for everyday driving, get fair gas mileage and be priced well enough to be affordable.

[oldlugs]

I may be wrong here, but I believe that the Cologne V6 design goes all the way back to the 1960s, and was originally both a V4 and a V6. The first cars sold in the USA with the Cologne (1971 or '72) were the early Capri V6 cars , with a 2.6L version of the engine, later upgraded to a better breathing 2.8L. They were pretty good engines back then, but that was a long time ago.
BTW- whenever compression ratio is increased, torque goes way up too (making HP go up). Add in a modern, good breathing 4 valve head, good exhaust and intake tracts with super-efficient engine management, and it really doesn't matter how many cylinders are sharing the work.
6 can = 8 under certain conditions.

[Mr. Ugly]

Originally Posted by oldlugs

The first cars sold in the USA with the Cologne (1971 or '72) were the early Capri V6 cars , with a 2.6L version of the engine, later upgraded to a better breathing 2.8L. They were pretty good engines back then, but that was a long time ago.

Yep, I had a '73 Capri with the 2.6L V6. That got me interested in Fords and Mustangs.

Had a few cool parts on that engine. Headers, custom exhaust, optical ignition trigger, MSD capacitive discharge, Accel Super coil, Offenhauser intake, Holley 390cfm 4 barrel, Sig Erson cam, springs, and solid lifters, Crane chrome moly tubular push rods.

I miss that car.

I bought the Mustang because it reminded me so much of my old Capri.